Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:45:49 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #117
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Wednesday, September 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 117



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: exhaust [Bill Funk ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #116 [Dhawk21 aol.com]
Re: 5th wheel camper [Bill Funk ]
Re: Spray-on bed liners [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Strange noise [Steven McCullough ]
Re: 2.0 PCV ["Randy L. Hatcher" ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? [James Federline ]
Re: Spray-on bed liners [quadrai oberon.ark.com (quadrai)]
Re: 302 [quadrai oberon.ark.com (quadrai)]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Exhaust ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Axle Ratios [Brian Pynn ]
Short ckt: ["S. HALL" ]
Re: Axle Ratios ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? [Thom Cheney ]
exhaust (fwd) [Philippe Gravelle ]

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:33:36 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: exhaust

> From: "Travis Wade"
> Subject: exhaust
>
> I keep finding water puddled in the end of my exhaust pipe. Any
> possible
> causes?

The largest products of combustion of gasoline are carbon dioxide and
water.
If the exhaust system is cool, the water vapor will condense out, and
you will get water puddles in the exhause. It's normal.
If, instead, it's a blown head gasket, you will notice a loss of
coolant.
As the exhaust pipes warm up, the water should go away.
Bill

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dhawk21 aol.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #116

In a message dated 97-09-17 06:06:31 EDT, you write:

>
Would like to know if there are more automatic transmission failures on Ford
Pickups, broncos or vans that have been built since 1989. The {E4OD}
automatic transmission seems to have many problems and after talking to
Automatic Transmission Rebuilders Association they have indicated that Ford
has had many problems with torque convertor failures and electronic clitches.
When we talked to transmission shops about rebuilding many of these
transmissions they said that the E4OD is a great revenue generator for them.
We are wondering if there is another alternative automatic so we dont have
to look at a 5 speed. When I checked Alldata it seems they still have many
technical service bulletins and upgrades even though this transmission has
been in these vehicles since 1989. Anyone that has experienced failures with
this transmission please contact us at DHawk21 aol.com thanks

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:08:14 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: 5th wheel camper

>
>
> From: Frank Nesbitt
> Subject: 5th wheel camper
>
> In response to your questions concerning the setup of my truck here it
> is Don.
>
> The rear is a 3.08....crunching the numbers I come up with a GCWR of
> 9,000
> lbs. Deducting the weight of the truck, I figure that I have about
> 5,400
> lbs to play with. I have found several 23-25 foot trailers under 5k
> lbs.
> Keep in mind that this is not a truck that I will be driving from
> coast to
> coast in. We both are working and will probably spend about 4
> weekends and
> 2 weeks a year in just around the southeast.

Does your truck really weigh only 3600 lbs? Loaded? With you & the wife
& fuel & everything?How long you will be driving it isn't the point,
really. Each mile is like any other, as far as loading is concerned.

>
>
> I was suprised to find that a automatic can pull/carry more of a load
> than
> a manual. My owners guide shows in the back where the GCWR of a 302
> w/3.08
> rear 4X2 automatic is 9,000 whereas the manual is 2,550 lbs LESS!!!!
> Does
> anyone know why such a wide differance?
>

Because of the clutch. With a low numeric ratio, the clutch must be
slipped more as the load goes up, and this causes the clutch to wear,
and also can produce vibrations that eat up the tranny.Bill

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:53:41 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Spray-on bed liners

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:13:53 -0700 " Pono & Mele"
writes:
> To dale, If you think about it, spray on liners are only a
>composition of
>chemicals sprayed on to your bed, like a skin if you will,not a
>protective
>solid barrier like a liner or even a 3/4"sheet of plywood, at least
>they
>wont leave dings or gouges in the bed. just somthing to think of .
>Rich
> legend hgea.org


How much weight does the spray in bed liner add to the bed?

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:53:41 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:31:07 -0400 hunter cyberstreet.com (Michael
Kisielewski) writes:
>I've been hearing alot about the K&N air intake systems on here and
>have
>a question. I understand the air to fuel ratio, and if I were to put
>on
>a K&N intake it is supposedly going to increase the air flow which
>should inturn increase fuel consumption. I would think that the
>increase
>in horsepower would be so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the
>decreased mileage. By the way I'm getting close to 18mpg with my '97
>F-150 ext cab 4x4 Off Road Package setup with the 4.6L and automatic
>overdrive trans with 3.55 limited slip rear. It may be a moot point
>because I haven't seen the intake system available for my vehile in my
>performance catalog. Hope I don't sound too unknowledgable. Thanks in
>advance for any info.

10 extra horses is 10 extra horses. I have yet to see a k&n cause an
engine to suck gas.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \(..)/ -----
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Shop)
//// / // : : --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[silent.bob juno.com]=[95 Ranger SOHC 2.3L]=
'//||\`
''``

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:17:51 -0500
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Strange noise

Ok, heres a question for all you F150 owners:

I have a 1990 F150 302 with the E4OD (I think - it has the electronic switch to disengage OD)

About 3-4 years ago (yes years), I took off in it and noticed a strange sorta vibration noise
coming from either under the hood or the transmission (its sound a little like a noisy 60 Hz transformer)

Its fairly noticeable in the cab. Here is what I deduced from living with it this long...

It only happens at around 1700 +/- 50 RPM with the transmission in drive.
It happens in every gear when passing through 1700 RPM. It does not happen in neutral and I haven't ever checked it in reverse.
It is the noisiest when its cold, and becomes quieter as the truck is driven/warms up. Sometimes , I don't hear it for weeks at a time
when its cold or warm. Sometimes when its cold, its very noticeable.

I suspect the torque convertor. We originally thought we found it when we located a body bolt that had fallen out and became
wedged between the catalytic converter and its heat shield - this wasn't it and I still haven't located where that bolt came from.

I've changed fluid, filters, I'm not even sure its the transmission. I've had no problems in 3-4 years or ~40,000 miles since it started.

I know this is vague, but it comes and goes.
The only thing is that its annoying.... anyone else ever noticed something like this????


Attachment Converted: "C:\Internet\DOWNLOAD\WINMAIL13.DAT"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Randy L. Hatcher"
Subject: Re: 2.0 PCV

on my 2.0 1986 model it is located just behind the distributor,and behind
the alternator.. hope this helps...

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Cactus Jack wrote:

>
> On the subject of PCV valves, does anyone know where the thing is on a 1987
> 2.0 engine?????? I've looked all over, and can't find it anywhere.
>
> Thanks, Randy
> " You may contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe"
>
>
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+
>

afn23242 afn.org
Randy Hatcher

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
those that have minds don't use them,those that do can't think straight.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:44:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Federline
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Silent . Bob wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:31:07 -0400 hunter cyberstreet.com (Michael
> Kisielewski) writes:
> >I've been hearing alot about the K&N air intake systems on here and
> >a question. I understand the air to fuel ratio, and if I were to put

[snip]

> >increase
> >in horsepower would be so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the
> >decreased mileage. By the way I'm getting close to 18mpg with my '97
>
> 10 extra horses is 10 extra horses. I have yet to see a k&n cause an
> engine to suck gas.

In fact, I've experienced better gas milage since installing a K&N in my
2.3L 4x2 Ranger. Went from 22 mixed city/freeway to 24, same conditions.

- --
James B. Federline MinnSoft Corporation
Principal Consultant "Actual Solutions To Real Problems"
----------M_____i_____n_____n_____S_____o_____f_____t---(sm)---
Tivoli / Lawson / UNIX Administration / Database Administration

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:55:28 -0700
From: quadrai oberon.ark.com (quadrai)
Subject: Re: Spray-on bed liners

Hi

Put plywood on top of your linerso that the vehicle will rest on it and not
your liner. It will chew up the plywood, which is replaceable. Remember, you
have two sides to the plywood

Tim

>Hi,
>
>Anyone know how tough the sprayed on liners are?
>I carry my snowmachine around alot.
>The carbides and studs are starting to chew up my current bed liner.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dale Grein97 MXZ 440 LC
>Espanola, Ontario84 F150 4X4 4speed 300 I-6
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dgtdesign.commailto:fordman dgtdesign.com
>
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
>+-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:57:39 -0700
From: quadrai oberon.ark.com (quadrai)
Subject: Re: 302

Hi,

What are your power problems ?
Acceleration
Hauling
4 wheeling, ?

Tim

>In a message dated 97-09-15 22:36:41 EDT, you write:
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone has some good cheap tricks to squeeze some
> more power and/or speed from her. I am interested in bolt on, part
> changes, and just changes to the motor. Any ideas are welcome. Make a
> complete engine upgrade if you want too. Thanx in advance, Derrick.
> >>
>GT-40 or Trick Flow heads $900 - $1300: TF heads+E-303 Cam+ GT-40 Intake= 78
>more HP and 54ft.lbs more torque on a 5.0 Cobra engine. E-303 cam may be too
>hot for a truck though.
>Paxton Super Charger $2000-3000: Expesive but true bolt on horse power they
>claim 340hp and 450 ft lbs torque on a 5.0 Mustang.
>There are cheaper things to do but none that really kick you in the pants
>like those above.
>Phil
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
>+-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:08:12 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

Michael Kisielewski wrote:
>
> I've been hearing alot about the K&N air intake systems on here and have
> a question. .....
> By the way I'm getting close to 18mpg with my '97

I have a 95 F-150 ext cab with the 302 (OK, 5.0L, I don't want to get
flamed), and I would have to say that it appears that you are doing well
if you are getting 18MPG. I typically get 16 to 17 MPG in mixed driving
(about 70% highway) on a totally stock engine.

In general, anything you can do to help your engine breathe better will
help both power and economy. Power is easy to see, because you can pump
more air through the engine in a given period of time, and that means
horsepower. During normal cruising, the engine has to draw air through
your intake system, and the more restrictive it is, the more energy it
has to expend in just breathing. This means that more energy is lost to
"drawing its breath" that could be going into moving the vehicle. If
you can decrease the restriction, your engine becomes more efficient,
and you get better milage.

I personally think that the K&N filter is taking on "urban legend"
status. Please look at the following web site:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.g50mc.org/tech/bop.html

This is an article called "Bolt-On Power" from Super Ford in May 1996.
In this article, they do what I have seen little of in performance
articles: they take an incremental approach, making changes and actually
putting the vehicle on the DYNO to actually QUANTIFY performance
improvements. In this article, they took a stock '89 5.0L Mustang, took
a baseline measurement (201.7HP at the wheels) and started making
changes from there. One of the first things they did was install a K&N
filter. It got them 1.1 HP on a stock HO engine. 1.1 HP on a base of
201.7HP is 0.5% improvement. I doubt you could feel this. They got more
(4.5HP) just out of removing the intake silencer!

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the K&N is lousy, just that
on a stock engine, it probably doesn't make too much difference. If you
open that bad boy up with some of the other mods discussed in the
article, I think that it might make a 10HP difference. There are other
good reasons for having a K&N, too, besides HP. I'll be uncorking mine
when the warranty expires and will probably install a K&N myself.

One of the early changes was an underdrive pulley set, that yielded over
10HP, and 13.6 lb-ft torque. Does anyone know if there is an underdrive
set for the 5.0 F-150 of '95 vintage?

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:17:08 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Exhaust

Travis Wade wrote:
>
> The water has a slight greenish tint, resembling coolant. No smell though.
> The truck runs like a top. No vapor trail, no nothing.

Green would make me suspect coolant, but in my experience, coolant that
gets through the combustion process doesn't come out with its greenish
color intact. I suppose it could be leaking in from a crack in the
exhaust port, but the heat would probably do the same thing there as
well.

I don't think I would worry about it too much, especially if you never
overheated the engine, there are no bubbles coming up in your radiator,
and you aren't losing coolant or fouling plugs. Just keep an eye on
your coolant level, as you should with all your fluids, on a regular
basis--say, every weekend or whenever you refuel.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:30:22 -0700
From: Brian Pynn
Subject: Axle Ratios

Okay, this is where I once again admit my thorough lack of knowledge to
all you mechanically inclined fellow mailgroup users. Can somebody
please explain, in layman's terms, what axle ratio is and what it means
to me? What's the normal range of axle ratios? I've heard numbers like
3.3, 4.11, etc. I just purchased a 1997 Ranger Flareside that was
equipped with a limited-slip rear axle. I understand the limited slip
part...but not the 3.73 gear ratio. How does that differ from a
standard Ranger axle? Will this improve the performance of my truck, or
is it just an unnecessary $300 option. I wouldn't normally have gone
for this option, but when you finally find a truck you like you pretty
much have to take it equipped as is.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:38:28 -0600
From: "S. HALL"
Subject: Short ckt:

I've got a 1987 Ranger supercab 4X4 which I've come to
depend on greatly. My problem is that it started blowing
the fuse to the backuplights/turn signals everytime the key
is turned on. I can live without the backuplights, but not
the turn signals. I've tried disabling the backups by removing
the bulbs to see if that would help, but the fuse still blows.
The truck is an XLT with the 2.9ltr, no power windows, no power
locks, no power seats -if it makes any difference. I know its
a short somewhere, but I hoped someone (who may have had the
same problem) could tell me where it probably is.
Thanks,

-Sam H. (shall nmsu.edu)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:30:18 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Axle Ratios

Brian Pynn wrote:
> Can somebody
> please explain, in layman's terms, what axle ratio is and what it means
> to me?

The ratio number tells you how many turns on the input (in the center of
the rear axle/differential unit connected to the drive shaft) it takes
to rotate the rear axle (wheels) once. If you have a 3.73, the drive
shaft (connected to the engine through the gearbox, either manual or
automatic) must turn 3.73 turns to get the wheels to go around once.

There are similar ratios inside the gearbox that relate how many times
the engine must turn to make the drive shaft rotate one turn. If you
want to know how many times the engine must turn to rotate the wheels
one revolution, just multiply the axle ratio by the gear ratio of the
gear you have selected.

Maybe someone else can provide axle ratio options for Rangers.

> Will this improve the performance of my truck, or
> is it just an unnecessary $300 option. I wouldn't normally have gone
> for this option, but when you finally find a truck you like you pretty
> much have to take it equipped as is.

Depends on what you call "performance". If you want top speed and
better cruising milage, you would want a lower ratio. The engine will
cruise at a lower RPM. If you want to tow a trailer, or want fast
acceleration, you want that engine to pump out more power strokes in
each wheel revolution, and that means you want a higher ratio. Think of
the ratio as a "torque multiplication factor", that is, the engine's
capability to twist the wheels is multiplied by the axle ratio. If you
have a higher ratio, the engine's rotational force is more greatly
multiplied, and that means that you can pull more, or get rolling more
quickly, with your vehicle.

I had a 90 Ranger once, but don't know what the axle was. All I know
was with the 4.0L six, I couldn't keep the rear wheels under control.
It had great low end torque, and was very tail happy. It was a lot of
fun--especially with 4WD in the snow!

As far as necessity goes, the limited-slip might keep you from getting
stuck sometime.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:32:59 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

David J. Baldwin wrote:
>
> Michael Kisielewski wrote:
> >
> I have a 95 F-150 ext cab with the 302 (OK, 5.0L, I don't want to get
> flamed),

Actually, it is a 4.9, but Ford has called it a 5.0 from the beginning
and everybody just believes them.

TC

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Philippe Gravelle
Subject: exhaust (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:46:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Philippe Gravelle
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: exhaust

Hi!!
I had the same with my 1995 300,4.9l,I always have a bit of water at....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.